The Bible as Literature in Schools

[New Korongo]

Science is a series of proven theories and theoretical theories, the most rational one is the most accepted, if we count the some writings in the bible as theories they are NOT the most rational and therefore widely accepted as wrong by scientists.

...you know, I always thought it was pretty bad when people posted in threads where they clearly hadn't read the OP, but it's a whole new kind of bad when people post in threads without so much as reading the title.

Here, let me repeat it for you:

"The Bible as Literature in Schools."

Now, would you like to try that again?

I should of quoted someone

Meh. We get it. You worship at the altar of "science" as the only relevant source of "information" or "knowledge."

That you are now touting "science" you have (IIRC) disparaged elsewhere is irrelevant.

That it is nigh impossible to define what is and is not "science" in absolute terms is irrelevant. (This is not to say there are not things that clearly are far more scientific than others and/or clearly NOT scientific, but only to say "science" is an abstract and arguable concept ultimately.)

That it is nigh impossible to justify categorical rejection of "non-science" as useful, helpful, enlightening, and contributing to "information" or "knowledge" is irrelevant.

Etc, etc, etc.

I have the highest respect for science and generally categorically prefer scientific evidence to any other form of "knowledge" or "information," but I reject the view that all else is irrelevant to human existence, happiness, advancement, etc.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Science is a series of proven theories and theoretical theories, the most rational one is the most accepted, if we count the some writings in the bible as theories they are NOT the most rational and therefore widely accepted as wrong by scientists.

...you know, I always thought it was pretty bad when people posted in threads where they clearly hadn't read the OP, but it's a whole new kind of bad when people post in threads without so much as reading the title.

Here, let me repeat it for you:

"The Bible as Literature in Schools."

Now, would you like to try that again?

I should of quoted someone

Meh. We get it. You worship at the altar of "science" as the only relevant source of "information" or "knowledge."

That you are now touting "science" you have (IIRC) disparaged elsewhere is irrelevant.

That it is nigh impossible to define what is and is not "science" in absolute terms is irrelevant. (This is not to say there are not things that clearly are far more scientific than others and/or clearly NOT scientific, but only to say "science" is an abstract and arguable concept ultimately.)

That it is nigh impossible to justify categorical rejection of "non-science" as useful, helpful, enlightening, and contributing to "information" or "knowledge" is irrelevant.

Etc, etc, etc.

I have the highest respect for science and generally categorically prefer scientific evidence to any other form of "knowledge" or "information," but I reject the view that all else is irrelevant to human existence, happiness, advancement, etc.

Um. Either you are desperately trying to justify a mistaken post or your reading comprehension has failed.

1. Nothing I said contradicts your statement.

2. CONTEXT is relevant. UT had complained about having to study the subject of literature at all, let alone the Bible as literature. I was merely saying that, although science is important, it is not the only field worthy of study or the only possible source of information.

3. Not only does my quoted post contain statements from which one could clearly infer I do not equate the Bible with science or would countenance the teaching of religion alongside or with science, but also information I posted earlier in this thread was clear on that point (as is my posting history). Nothing in my quoted post contains anything from which one could infer I equate the Bible with science or would countenance the teaching of religion alongside or with science.

[Unhealthy2]

Um. Either you are desperately trying to justify a mistaken post or your reading comprehension has failed.

1. Nothing I said contradicts your statement.

2. CONTEXT is relevant. UT had complained about having to study the subject of literature at all, let alone the Bible as literature. I was merely saying that, although science is important, it is not the only field worthy of study or the only possible source of information.

3. Not only does my quoted post contain statements from which one could clearly infer I do not equate the Bible with science or would countenance the teaching of religion alongside or with science, but also information I posted earlier in this thread was clear on that point (as is my posting history). Nothing in my quoted post contains anything from which one could infer I equate the Bible with science or would countenance the teaching of religion alongside or with science.

I don't have a problem with literature. It's just that I don't see what is gained from it that constitutes "knowledge" or "information." Very little objective meaning can be gleaned from it, and Saark even insinuated that the objective meaning of a text isn't what matters. As you can get basically anything out of basically any text if you're willing to construct an elaborate enough ad hoc narrative, what's the point? If you like reading fiction or poetry or analyzing it, be my guest. But if I can be made to study your form of entertainment, then why aren't you made to play video games and analyze them?

What knowledge comes from literature that isn't either:

1) Totally subjective.

2) So trivial that basic introspection could have produced the same data.

or

3) A claim about human nature complex enough to require either experimental data or heavy degrees of rational philosophical justification in order to believe, and hence not something that you could learn the truth about from simply reading.

In addition, since all of these are hidden behind cryptic allusions, they're even harder to get to. If you what to espouse philosophical point x, then just write an essay explaining, supporting, and expounding upon the implications of x. Philosophical points are complex and nuanced enough without making it even harder by masking them in poetry or some story of some sort.

Hence, I look at literature as a form of entertainment. You like to read and analyze poetry? Go right ahead. And no, calling literature entertainment is not a slight against it. I partake of entertainment, and I patronize (in the pecuniary sense) some of the individuals that produce it for me. I'm not calling to get rid of authors, nor am I even saying to get rid of literature as a college major. Just don't force me to take it unless you're willing to be made to take classes on the geography of Tamriel or to analyze the prose of "The Lusty Argonian Maid."

Thankfully, I've managed to only have to take one class on literature, and that was also a required composition class.

[Hydesland]

1) Totally subjective.

What is wrong with subjective? Much of our culture is utterly based around expressions of subjective notions. Because it's often much more effective to appeal to people's emotional perspective when trying to express certain thoughts than reducing them to quantitative analysis. It's like describing yellow to a blind person, sometimes cold scientific description isn't actually very good at giving the observer the intended perspective.

Hence, I look at literature as a form of entertainment. You like to read and analyze poetry? Go right ahead. And no, calling literature entertainment is not a slight against it. I partake of entertainment, and I patronize (in the pecuniary sense) some of the individuals that produce it for me. I'm not calling to get rid of authors, nor am I even saying to get rid of literature as a college major. Just don't force me to take it unless you're willing to be made to take classes on the geography of Tamriel or to analyze the prose of "The Lusty Argonian Maid."

Again, why does entertainment negate its practical usefulness? A knowledge of literature could easily said to be necessary to prepare children for modern society, especially in the upper echelons, at the very least to understand all kinds publications which often reference literature, from newspapers, journals, academic books to even scientific papers.

[Sarkhaan]

Um. Either you are desperately trying to justify a mistaken post or your reading comprehension has failed.

1. Nothing I said contradicts your statement.

2. CONTEXT is relevant. UT had complained about having to study the subject of literature at all, let alone the Bible as literature. I was merely saying that, although science is important, it is not the only field worthy of study or the only possible source of information.

3. Not only does my quoted post contain statements from which one could clearly infer I do not equate the Bible with science or would countenance the teaching of religion alongside or with science, but also information I posted earlier in this thread was clear on that point (as is my posting history). Nothing in my quoted post contains anything from which one could infer I equate the Bible with science or would countenance the teaching of religion alongside or with science.

I don't have a problem with literature. It's just that I don't see what is gained from it that constitutes "knowledge" or "information." Very little objective meaning can be gleaned from it, and Saark even insinuated that the objective meaning of a text isn't what matters. As you can get basically anything out of basically any text if you're willing to construct an elaborate enough ad hoc narrative, what's the point? If you like reading fiction or poetry or analyzing it, be my guest. But if I can be made to study your form of entertainment, then why aren't you made to play video games and analyze them?

What knowledge comes from literature that isn't either:

1) Totally subjective.

2) So trivial that basic introspection could have produced the same data.

or

3) A claim about human nature complex enough to require either experimental data or heavy degrees of rational philosophical justification in order to believe, and hence not something that you could learn the truth about from simply reading.

In addition, since all of these are hidden behind cryptic allusions, they're even harder to get to. If you what to espouse philosophical point x, then just write an essay explaining, supporting, and expounding upon the implications of x. Philosophical points are complex and nuanced enough without making it even harder by masking them in poetry or some story of some sort.

Hence, I look at literature as a form of entertainment. You like to read and analyze poetry? Go right ahead. And no, calling literature entertainment is not a slight against it. I partake of entertainment, and I patronize (in the pecuniary sense) some of the individuals that produce it for me. I'm not calling to get rid of authors, nor am I even saying to get rid of literature as a college major. Just don't force me to take it unless you're willing to be made to take classes on the geography of Tamriel or to analyze the prose of "The Lusty Argonian Maid."

Thankfully, I've managed to only have to take one class on literature, and that was also a required composition class.

This verges on derailment, but I'll say this.

We study English not just for the entertainment value. We study English because it expands vocabulary, which both allows and encourages accuracy and precision in speech. It encourages critical thinking skills such as synthesis and analysis. It gives students practice in deciphering complex texts, teaches students to explore different paths, and builds creativity.

Math is hard enough without adding in imaginary numbers. However, they serve a purpose. So do allusions.

If you attend a liberal arts university, yeah. You should be required to take it. Why? Because you were dumb enough to enroll in a liberal arts university, despite your hatred of a liberal arts curriculum. Of course, that isn't so much what we're discussing...we're looking at public schools.

[Unhealthy2]

What is wrong with subjective?

Well, it's not knowledge.

Much of our culture is utterly based around expressions of subjective notions.

That's because we have a very superficial culture, a culture where how something makes you feel is more important than whether or not it's actually true.

Because it's often much more effective to appeal to people's emotional perspective when trying to express certain thoughts than reducing them to quantitative analysis.

That sounds manipulative.

It's like describing yellow to a blind person, sometimes cold scientific description isn't actually very good at giving the observer the intended perspective.

You can't describe what yellow is like to a blind person. That's impossible, as color is one of the "primitives" of our internal models.

Again, why does entertainment negate its practical usefulness? A knowledge of literature could easily said to be necessary to prepare children for modern society, especially in the upper echelons, at the very least to understand all kinds publications which often reference literature, from newspapers, journals, academic books to even scientific papers.

Explain the practical use of literature. I've not seen many papers or books that referenced literature.

[Unhealthy2]

We study English because it expands vocabulary, which both allows and encourages accuracy and precision in speech.

Reading a dictionary works too.

It encourages critical thinking skills such as synthesis and analysis.

Nowhere near to the degree that a class on real analysis or topology does. Or a class on philosophy.

It gives students practice in deciphering complex texts, teaches students to explore different paths, and builds creativity.

It also teaches them that anything goes. Creativity must be introduced in a context that doesn't encourage relativism.

Math is hard enough without adding in imaginary numbers. However, they serve a purpose. So do allusions.

That purpose being what? Making it even harder to figure out what the point of the text is?

[Hydesland]

That's because we have a very superficial culture, a culture where how something makes you feel is more important than whether or not it's actually true.

That's just completely incoherent. In what sense is how something makes you feel not true? The problem is, ethical problems, for instance (much used in literature) are not objective, they're entirely about reconciling your feelings and intuitions, and it's a lot harder to trigger your intuition by summing aggregate utility using macro indifference curves and using constrained optimisation to find the optimal solution.

That sounds manipulative.

Nope, simply communication.

You can't describe what yellow is like to a blind person. That's impossible, as color is one of the "primitives" of our internal models.

As is arguably many many things that literature ultimately expresses, like emotional, intuitive and ethical matters.

I've not seen many papers or books that referenced literature.

That's pretty silly, I find it hard to believe you when you say that. Much of every day language alludes to poetry or literature.

[SaintB]

Only if they do it form a sociological point of view and go into detail about other modern religions and the ways they influence people.

[Caninope]

Only if they do it form a sociological point of view and go into detail about other modern religions and the ways they influence people.

Why are we doing that in an English class?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Explain the practical use of literature. I've not seen many papers or books that referenced literature.

I'll assume its because you've spent your time masturbating to physics textbooks.

[Global Enclave]

As a christian conservative, I would LOVE to see the bible being taught in school. However, There are two problems with this. First, The separation of church and state. This is to protect non-Christians, who have every right not to be made to read religious material in public school. Second, I do NOT want my kids to be forced, or suggested to read the Koran, Satanic material, or even atheist material. After all the propaganda the tides foundation is already hitting our children with, I shudder to think what would happen if someone began indoctrinating our children into some strange thing like Scientology. So, As much as I like the idea, there is always another side to the coin.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Second, I do NOT want my kids to be forced, or suggested to read the Koran, Satanic material, or even atheist material.

What constitutes atheist material?

[Sociobiology]

Explain the practical use of literature. I've not seen many papers or books that referenced literature.

I'll assume its because you've spent your time masturbating to physics textbooks.

Fiction is like an exercise bike for the mind it doesn't take you anywhere but it tones up the muscles that can.

[Caninope]

As a christian conservative, I would LOVE to see the bible being taught in school. However, There are two problems with this. First, The separation of church and state. This is to protect non-Christians, who have every right not to be made to read religious material in public school. Second, I do NOT want my kids to be forced, or suggested to read the Koran, Satanic material, or even atheist material. After all the propaganda the tides foundation is already hitting our children with, I shudder to think what would happen if someone began indoctrinating our children into some strange thing like Scientology. So, As much as I like the idea, there is always another side to the coin.

One can teach the Bible, so long as it is taught in an appropriate environment (English Lit.) and not presented as religious fact.

[The Irish Marchlands]

Again I reiterate. It's a book. Calm down for goodness sake

[Hresejnen]

If we're going to be talking about how the Bible should be read for its influence on modern material, let's go one step further: let's look at the material that influenced the Bible as it is today. After all, Eddas, even combined, are far shorter than either section of the Bible . Not only that but not very many people will read them and go, "Hey, so this is how the universe works. Time to thump the ol' Hávamál!"

Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious, but certainly, the only bits of the Bible that influence modern works...people already know about them. We know who David is, and how it went down with Goliath. We know about the many different Jacobs and Josephs. We know about Abraham and Moses and Noah, and the book of Revelations. We don't need to read it in class to get it. Instead, we should be reading things that we wouldn't normally know about, and may go, "Aha, so that's where it all started." Things like Beowulf, Iliad and Odyssey, the Völsunga saga, The Lord of the Rings, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, 1984, some of Mark Twain's stuff, Watership Down. Bible stories are honestly better told via word of mouth, because they're ludicrously long and littered with pointless quips (at least, pointless from a literary point of view).

[Risottia]

...The Bible in its various translations has historically, and is currently, one of, if not the most widely read books in the English language. As such, it is also one of the most frequently alluded to texts...

You mean that the Bible is one of the most misquoted texts in Anglophone countries. This, though, doesn't imply that is one of the most widely read books in those countries.
Actually, judging from the huge misuse of Biblical quotes, I'd say that most people who own a Bible never bothered to read it.

Anyway, about the subject of the thread...
no.
Just no.
1.It's poorly written (as any patchwork of different traditions).
2.There are parts of it that urge people to commit ethnical cleansing, genocides, war crimes, gender discrimination and whatnot. Yes, in the NT also.
3.Reading the Bible would make sense, in a non-religious school, only if the pupils also read Hesiod's Theogony, the Edda and Luther's 95 Theses - that's just to quote some of the religious texts that have had the most influence on the Western culture - and then we should add lots of theological and philosophical texts...
Their time can be better used studying other subjects.

[Sarkhaan]

We study English because it expands vocabulary, which both allows and encourages accuracy and precision in speech.

Reading a dictionary works too.

Not really, no. We learn words much more efficiently by seeing them used. A dictionary will teach denotation, but is not able to teach connotation.

It encourages critical thinking skills such as synthesis and analysis.

Nowhere near to the degree that a class on real analysis or topology does. Or a class on philosophy.

There's little difference between the study of philosophy and the study of literature, to be entirely honest.

It gives students practice in deciphering complex texts, teaches students to explore different paths, and builds creativity.

It also teaches them that anything goes. Creativity must be introduced in a context that doesn't encourage relativism.

No, it doesn't. It teaches that anything goes if it can be supported and defended using the text.

Math is hard enough without adding in imaginary numbers. However, they serve a purpose. So do allusions.

That purpose being what? Making it even harder to figure out what the point of the text is?

To provide depth to the text. To make it so it isn't just a cute little story, but actually conveys meaning beyond the words on the page. Horrible that one should have to work to discover the meaning, I know. But it is that work that makes the study of literature relevant and a worthwhile exercise.

[Sarkhaan]

Only if they do it form a sociological point of view and go into detail about other modern religions and the ways they influence people.

Why would one do that in an English lit. class? Why are the modern religions at all relevant?

[Sarkhaan]

As a christian conservative, I would LOVE to see the bible being taught in school. However, There are two problems with this. First, The separation of church and state. This is to protect non-Christians, who have every right not to be made to read religious material in public school.

Actually, they don't. They have the right to not be made to read a religious text in the context of proselytizing or promoting a religion. It can be required material if it is presented in a way that neither promotes nor denigrates any specific religion.

[Sarkhaan]

If we're going to be talking about how the Bible should be read for its influence on modern material, let's go one step further: let's look at the material that influenced the Bible as it is today. After all, Eddas, even combined, are far shorter than either section of the Bible . Not only that but not very many people will read them and go, "Hey, so this is how the universe works. Time to thump the ol' Hávamál!"

How did something written in the 13th century in Iceland influence a text completed in the first century in the Middle East?

Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious, but certainly, the only bits of the Bible that influence modern works...people already know about them. We know who David is, and how it went down with Goliath. We know about the many different Jacobs and Josephs. We know about Abraham and Moses and Noah, and the book of Revelations. We don't need to read it in class to get it.

By and large, we "know" the stories. Frequently, what we "know" about these stories is not quite accurate, and sometimes flat out wrong.

Instead, we should be reading things that we wouldn't normally know about, and may go, "Aha, so that's where it all started." Things like Beowulf, Iliad and Odyssey, the Völsunga saga, The Lord of the Rings, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, 1984, some of Mark Twain's stuff, Watership Down. Bible stories are honestly better told via word of mouth, because they're ludicrously long and littered with pointless quips (at least, pointless from a literary point of view).

Most people "know" the story of the Odyssey in the same way they "know" the Bible...so why bother reading it?

Because they don't know it. There is something to be said for reading the actual text and not just passing the story along by word of mouth.

[Sarkhaan]

...The Bible in its various translations has historically, and is currently, one of, if not the most widely read books in the English language. As such, it is also one of the most frequently alluded to texts...

You mean that the Bible is one of the most misquoted texts in Anglophone countries. This, though, doesn't imply that is one of the most widely read books in those countries.
Actually, judging from the huge misuse of Biblical quotes, I'd say that most people who own a Bible never bothered to read it.

Even with misquoting people and the people who scream about it being the "Word of God" but have never read it, it's still one of the most widely rea

d.

Anyway, about the subject of the thread...
no.
Just no.
1.It's poorly written (as any patchwork of different traditions).

Which would be an argument against reading it in its entirety, not against using chunks of it.

2.There are parts of it that urge people to commit ethnical cleansing, genocides, war crimes, gender discrimination and whatnot. Yes, in the NT also.

We study many books that discuss, explore, condone, and even encourage many of those things. So what?

3.Reading the Bible would make sense, in a non-religious school, only if the pupils also read Hesiod's Theogony, the Edda and Luther's 95 Theses - that's just to quote some of the religious texts that have had the most influence on the Western culture - and then we should add lots of theological and philosophical texts...

Again...why? We are not studying the Bible as religion, we are studying it as literature. Why would I break out the 95 Theses? What impact has that had on literature? I don't care about the impact upon culture...I care about the impact upon literature. While they certainly influence one another, they aren't identical.
Their time can be better used studying other subjects.[/quote]

[Sungai Pusat]

I'd say give it a go if we truly stick to literature and not turn it into some creationist class.

Then again, a better option would be to give schools te option of whether or not to opt it into ciriculum.

[Unhealthy2]

Not really, no. We learn words much more efficiently by seeing them used. A dictionary will teach denotation, but is not able to teach connotation.

I suppose so.

There's little difference between the study of philosophy and the study of literature, to be entirely honest.

Nonsense. Maybe if you're dealing with touchy-feeley continental philosophy, but analytic philosophy is quite different.

No, it doesn't. It teaches that anything goes if it can be supported and defended using the text.

There is no difference. A complex enough ad hoc narrative can be used to support absolutely any interpretation one wants to find. Essentially, you're giving kids practice at having even stronger selection biases.

To provide depth to the text.

How? How would an essay on a philosophical point lack depth? If the philosophical point is the entire point, then what purpose does the story serve?

To make it so it isn't just a cute little story, but actually conveys meaning beyond the words on the page.

But why bother? Deeper meaning is best conveyed in essays, studies, proofs, arguments, etc. Deeper meaning makes the most sense in an academic context.

Horrible that one should have to work to discover the meaning, I know.

Clarity is a virtue. There's no need to artificially make the meaning harder to get. If I wanted to explain calculus, would it be better to just explain it explicitly and directly, or should I write a 500 page novel that vaguely alludes to derivatives, limits, continuity, integration, and the various theorems thereof?

But it is that work that makes the study of literature relevant and a worthwhile exercise.

Hard work doesn't make something worthwhile. WoW can eat up a huge amount of time and effort, so much so that people quit their jobs just to have more time playing it. It's still a waste of time, not that there's anything wrong with wasting time.